4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Mandel.
5.  On 15 June 1986 the applicant had a traffic accident with a head-on collision. Subsequently, the other party's insurance company recognised its liability to compensate her for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and paid her 11,539.63 German marks (DEM) (5,900.11 Euros (EUR)).The applicant claimed further payments on the ground of permanent eye complaints and whiplash injury. The insurance company contested the existence and causality of that damage, and in particular contested that the applicant had suffered any permanent damage to her health.
6.  On 9 February 1992 the applicant brought a claim against the insurance company for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as a result of the traffic accident.
7.  On 27 March 1992 the Munich Regional Court held a first hearing in which it assigned the case to a single judge as it did not display any legal or factual difficulties. On the same day, the single judge ordered an expert opinion in the field of orthopaedics and appointed an orthopaedist from Munich.
8.  On 30 April 1992 the applicant, referring to a medical certificate, informed the court that she was unable to travel due to illness, and asked the Regional Court to appoint an orthopaedist closer to her place of residence. After discussion on how to proceed it was decided that the originally appointed expert should examine the applicant at her place of residence.The expert opinion was delivered in July 1993.
9.  In August the expert opinion was forwarded to the parties for comments within two week. Upon request of the applicant's lawyer this time limit was extended until 29 September 1993.
10.  On 30 November 1993 the court, upon request of the applicant, ordered another expert opinion regarding her eye complaints. After the applicant had in December informed the court that she continued to be unable to travel new experts were appointed on 22 February and 9 June 1994; the opinion was delivered on 21 July 1994. The court put supplementary questions to the ophthalmologist as to whether the accident had caused the applicant's eye complaints and on his diagnostic methods on 12 September 1994, 31 January, 2 May and 22 June 1995. The competent judge sitting in the case changed twice during this period.
11.  On 11 January 1996 the court decided to consult the files of the applicant's social court proceedings concerning her disability pension and requested further information from the applicant, setting a time limit of three weeks. After an extension of this time limit the applicant submitted the requested information on 14 February 1996.
12.  On 16 July 1996 the court ordered an expert opinion in the field of bio-mechanics on whether the accident had caused the applicant's eye complaint. After a reminder by the court of 12 February 1997 the experts delivered the opinion on 10 April 1997, a first supplementary opinion was submitted on 23 June 1997. On 25 July 1997 a hearing was set, to which the experts were summoned. The hearing on 27 October 1997 was postponed due to the experts' failure to appear. On 11 December 1997 a hearing took place and the experts made submissions. On 14 April 1998 another supplementary opinion was delivered.
13.  On 17 August 1998 the Munich Regional Court awarded the applicant a further DEM 10,000 (EUR 5,112.92) for non-pecuniary damage and declared that the applicant was entitled to compensation for any further damage resulting from the accident, without assessing the exact amount payable. Referring to the expert opinions, it found that the applicant's whiplash injury had healed by the end of 1986 and that her eye complaints had been caused by the accident.
14.  The judgment was served on the applicant's lawyer on 1 December 1998; the appeal was filed on 30 December 1998. Because of settlement negotiations between the parties the applicant requested a two months extension of the time limit to reason her appeal until 6 April 1998.
15.  On 3 December 1999 the Munich Court of Appeal upheld the judgment and referred the remainder of the claim back to the Regional Court for further consideration.
16.  On 20 March 2000 the Regional Court held a hearing after a new change of judge. The applicant asked for an adjournment to establish the exact amount of damages payable to her to that date. On 14 April 2000 she claimed damages in the amount of DEM 167,683.53 (EUR 85,735.23) for 380 heads of damage (Schadenspositionen).
17.  On 8 May 2000 a hearing was held; a decision was postponed to allow for a friendly settlement to be reached. On 7 December 2000 the applicant informed the court that negotiations to that end had broken down.
18.  At a hearing on 12 February 2001 an expert opinion concerning the applicant's inability to work was ordered. The expert opinion in occupational medicine was submitted on 21 May 2001. On 10 July 2001 the court put supplementary questions to the expert, without hearing submissions from the applicant, on the degree of her occupational disability when not taking into consideration her eye complaints.
19.  On 10 July 2001 the applicant lodged an application on grounds of bias against the expert in occupational medicine. On 19 July 2001 the expert submitted his observations. On 13 August 2001 the court was notified of a change in the applicant's counsel. On 16 August 2001 the applicant asked for the costs of the occupational medicine expert opinion to be written off. On 24 September 2001 the court declined that request. It set a hearing for 29 October 2001, without having decided on the application on grounds of bias against the expert.
20.  On 9 October 2001 the applicant lodged an application on grounds of bias against the acting judge. On 13 November 2001 the judge submitted her official statement. On 28 December 2001 the Munich Regional Court rejected the application on grounds of bias against the judge. On 17 January 2002 the applicant filed an objection. On 25 February 2002 the Munich Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court's decision of 28 December 2001 and granted the application.
21.  On 11 June 2002 a newly assigned judge held a hearing and set a deadline of 27 August 2002 for the applicant to substantiate the amount of damages claimed and of 1 October 2002 for the respondent to reply. On 3 September 2002 the applicant submitted her claim in the amount of EUR 111,889.33 covering loss of wages, additional housekeeping costs and other expenses.
22.  On 21 February 2003 a hearing was held following a new change of acting judge. On 28 March 2003 the court granted the application on grounds of bias against the expert in occupational medicine and ordered a new expert opinion as to the applicant's inability to work.
23.  On 1 July 2003 the expert requested several x-ray images. The court ordered the applicant to forward the images. On 4 November 2003 the applicant informed the court that she did not possess any x-ray images and that the expert should try to obtain them. The expert refused and on 16 December 2003 the court ordered the applicant to make the x-ray images available to the expert. On 13 January 2004 the applicant informed the court that the x-ray images no longer existed. The expert submitted his opinion on 11 March 2004.
24.  On 2 July 2004 a hearing was held, after the applicant had objected to written procedure. On 16 July 2004, upon both parties' request, the court ordered a neuro-ophthalmologist's expert opinion concerning the applicant's inability to work. The expert opinion was submitted on 3 December 2004.
25.  On 25 February 2005 supplementary questions were put to the expert, which he answered on 4 April 2005. After a two week extension of the time limit for filing observations, on 2 June 2005 the applicant asked for supplementary questions to be put to the expert. After a dispute regarding the admissibility of one of these questions, on 8 August 2005 a date for an oral hearing was set for 16 September 2005. In this hearing the neuro‑ophthalmologist was heard; the applicant asked for a new expert opinion with respect to her inability to work as an administrative officer.
26.  On 30 September 2005 the court ordered a new neuro‑ophthalmologist's expert opinion. The files were forwarded to the expert on 25 October 2005. In January 2006 the Regional Court contacted the expert who informed the court that he planned to examine the applicant in February. On 21 July 2006 the court sent a reminder to the expert. On 4 August and 12 October 2006 the applicant inquired whether the expert had submitted his opinion and asked the court to set a deadline for the expert. On 3 November 2006 the respondent suggested that a deadline be set for the expert. On 7 and 15 November 2006 the applicant asked whether a deadline had been set and reminded the court of its obligation to expedite proceedings. On 21 November 2006 the expert informed the court that he would submit his opinion by the end of November. It was submitted by fax on 4 December 2006.
27.  On 1 February 2007 supplementary questions were put to the expert. On 14 March 2007 the files were sent to the expert, after both parties had made the required advance payment for the expert fees. On 12 April, 2 and 17 July 2007 the applicant asked whether the expert had submitted his supplementary opinion. On 12 July 2007 the expert informed the court that the supplement would be submitted within two weeks. On 24 August 2007 the respondent asked whether the supplementary expert opinion had been submitted. On 4 September 2009 the court set a deadline on pain of a fine for the expert to submit the supplement by 20 September 2007 which he did. On 12 November 2007 the court extended the deadline for the respondent to submit its observations on the supplementary expert opinion until 20 November 2007. On 21 December 2007 a hearing was held.
28.  In its judgment of 30 January 2008, served on applicant's counsel on 11 February 2008, the Munich Regional Court awarded the applicant further compensation for pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 19,883.69 plus interest and dismissed the remainder of her claim.
29.  On 4 March 2008 the applicant filed an appeal, which she reasoned on 7 May 2008 after an extension of the statutory time limit.On 17 September 2008 the Court of Appeal advised the parties that it intended to dismiss the appeal by unanimous decision without holding a hearing.
30.  On 25 February 2009 the Munich Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal but decided that no costs shall arise for two of the expert opinions. This decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 27 February 2009. On 11 March 2009 the applicant filed an appeal alleging a violation of the right to be heard.
31.  On 20 March 2009, served on the applicant's lawyer on 25 March 2009, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal for the right to be heard and imposed a fee of 50.00 Euros (EUR).
32.  On 21 April 2009 the applicant submitted a constitutional complaint (file no. 2 BvR 906/09). On 18 January 2010, served on the applicant's lawyer on 17 February 2010, the Federal Constitutional Court quashed the Munich Court of Appeal's decision of 25 February 2009 as far as it concerned the dismissal of the applicant's appeal and remitted the case to the Nuremburg Court of Appeal.
33.  On 8 October 2008 the applicant lodged an application on grounds of bias against the presiding judge which was dismissed on 11 November 2008. On 21 November 2008 the applicant filed an appeal alleging a violation of the right to be heard, which was dismissed on 18 February 2009.
34.  On 18 November 2008 the applicant filed a new application on grounds of bias against the presiding judge and another judge.On 4 December 2008 and 27 December 2008 she filed further applications on grounds of bias. On 17 February 2009 the Court of Appeal dismissed these applications. On 27 February 2009 the applicant filed an appeal alleging a violation of the right to be heard which was dismissed on 14 May 2009.
35.  In the brief of 27 February 2009 and on 8 April 2009 the applicant also filed further applications on grounds of bias, which were dismissed on 11 May 2009. The applicant's appeal for the right to be heard against this decision was dismissed on 24 June 2009.
36.  On 29 July 2009 the applicant submitted a constitutional complaint.